Davie council directs staff to allow United Ranches residents to seek Cooper City water service on a case-by-case basis

The Town Council of Davie on April 16 heard a detailed briefing on an interlocal agreement (ILA) with Cooper City to allow some Davie properties in the United Ranches neighborhood to receive Cooper City water service and directed staff to proceed on a case-by-case basis.

Town attorney Alan Weinfahl summarized the history and options, saying the town annexed part of United Ranches in 2006 and that 32 properties in the town are currently served by Cooper City utilities while 52 adjacent properties could connect "should the residents desire". Weinfahl said Cooper City charges a 25% surcharge to Town of Davie customers but that Cooper City has told staff it has the capacity to serve the identified properties if requested.

The briefing identified a central disagreement: Davie staff proposed limiting the ILA to the map’s “selected properties,” while Cooper City preferred language limited to "single-family" properties. The difference became material because a pending site-development application at 10601 Sterling Road — a Chabad property with a long-standing Cooper City water connection and a plat for a roughly 20,000-square-foot temple — is proposed by the town applicant as a 24-townhome project. Cooper City has signaled it will not provide service to developments it deems a more intense use than single-family homes.

Mayor Paul criticized Cooper City’s attempt to use water service as leverage over a parcel inside Davie’s jurisdiction. “I don’t think they should be dictating to us what they will or will not do in order to limit our ability to develop our property,” the mayor said. Council members said they did not want to deny United Ranches residents the option of connecting to public water but also did not want the ILA to be drafted in a way that restricts Davie’s land-use authority.

Given the impasse, the council’s direction to staff was to allow affected property owners, at their option, to petition Cooper City for water service and to process any resulting approvals administratively rather than require council-by-council approval. Staff described the expected sequence: residents would first seek Cooper City approval and, if Cooper City is willing, then seek Davie approval; Davie paperwork would include notice that Cooper City’s surcharge applies and that the town cannot represent residents in Cooper City’s service decisions.

Council members confirmed they would not support limiting connections only to "single-family" homes as Cooper City proposed. The council also authorized the town manager and staff to continue outreach and, if desired by council members, meet individually with Cooper City elected officials to try to resolve outstanding issues, but the ILA negotiations were described as effectively stalled and the immediate path forward is case-by-case administrative handling.

Why this matters: dozens of United Ranches residents are on wells and have sought municipal water for years; the council’s direction removes a procedural barrier for those residents while preserving Davie’s discretion on land-use approvals for specific development applications.

The council did not adopt a formal ILA at the meeting and did not take a roll-call vote on a final interlocal agreement; the transcript records the council’s direction and consensus to move forward administratively and on a case-by-case basis.

The town attorney and staff will return with administrative procedures and any necessary forms if and when residents apply to Cooper City and then to Davie.